Tiger337

I don't have time either, but nerd time is a priority!

So, who wants to talk about Park Factors today?😃

I would have been happy to just keeping fielding separate from hitting and not trying boil everything down to one number. If you do want to arrive at one number for a player's value though, I do think you need to consider the position they play. If a DH goes into the Hall of Fame or wins an MVP, he should have to hit better than his peer who plays a position.

He was He was a good defender early in his career. Then he started having hamstring problems and became a fuill-time DH.

I hope that Torres accepts the offer. There may be a couple of more interesting options in free agency, but it sounds like the Tigers will be pursuing pitching more than hitting and I wouldn't want them to lose Torres and not replace him.

It starts getting interesting on Tuesday: November 18 is the deadline for players to accept or decline qualifying offers and the deadline for teams to set their 40-man rosters to protect players from the Rule 5 Draft. Speaking of the Rule 5 draft, has anyone seen Liston lately? I don't think he has posted since the summer?

That is what DRS and OAA do. A DH gets a zero for those stats. The DH does not hurt you on the field with his defense. yes, a CF provides more value defensively than a 1B and a 1B provides more defensive value than a DH. At least, that is how I see it. Let's say you take positional adjustment out if altogether and make WAR = OWAR + DRS. That would be a stat which is totally based on what they do on the field. Then we can argue about about which player is better, the SS with 2 WAR or the DH 2.5 WAR. There is nothing wrong with that. Arguing is fun. But if we want just one number to answer our argument, we need to figure out how to compare players from different positions. How should we do that?

I thought so too.

You are definitely not stupid! I think you are very concerned with how things are presented because you are good at that. You won a SABR award for that. Right? Anyway, I think you have said you are/were a center fielder in your baseball leaugue. You provide more defensive value to your team than a DH. Shouldn't you get credit for that? Maybe make the DH 0 points and add points for being able to play a position. It would still come out to be the same WAR. Does that work for you?

I think you understsand this, but the "suggestion" is just how you are reading it, not what is actually happening with the stat. You are the one that keeps bringing it up! 😃 I agree that the presentation could be better.

I still don't understand your problem with positional adjutment beyond presentation, but let's talk about WAA. WAA does include all the same defensive calculations as WAR. There are pros and cons of using WAA that go beyond presentation. The main difference between WAA and WAR is playing time. An average player can keep accumulating WAR as long as he performs above replacement. On the other hand, this player will always be 0 WAA whether he has 100 PA or 10000 PA. This might be appealing in HoF or MVP discussions, but maybe less so in roster construction discussions or comparisons between players who are not great players. For Hall of Fame discussions, players with high but short peaks will rank better in WAA, whereas players with longer duration but lower peaks will rank better with WAR. I think it's worth looking at both. For other discussions, the problem with WAA is that an average player who is actually a pretty valuable player will always be 0 wins no matter how much he plays. A player who has a great 50 PA before going down with a season ending injury will have a higher WAA than an average player with 600 PA. With WAR, the full-season, player will be about 2 whereas the 50 PA player will be between 0 and 1 which I think is more appropriate. That's one extreme example, but illustrations the potential problem with WAA in player evaluation.

It could be both!

I thought Bichette would have had more WAR than that. 13 years with an OPS+ above 100 and less than 8 WAR? That is remarkable. He had -34 Fielding Runs one year before you even get to the positional adjustment! He deserved a few WAR just for his eyebrows.

yeah, there is definitely some guess work involved in WAR. It's a good back of the napkin stat for comparing players especially over a long career, but I think it gets overused.

They assign the positional adjustment to both owar and dwar which I agree is confusing. So, they end up double counting and they don't add up to WAR. If they just took the positional adjustment out of the dwar part, a full-time dh would have 0 dwar.